Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

The Week That Was: 2013-03-23 (March 23, 2013) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project

###################################################

Quote of the Week: “Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.” – Aldous Huxley

###################################################

Number of the Week: 42%

###################################################

On April 1, Fred Singer will talk on “Global Warming” to the Science Group luncheon at the Cosmos Club in Washington. For additional information and reservations please contact Ken Haapala by March 28 at Ken@SEPP.org.

###################################################

Urgent: Reviewers Needed for Climate Change Reconsidered-2

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is seeking credentialed individuals who are willing to serve as reviewers of the forthcoming NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered-2. Reviewers will be needed between April and August 2013 for various chapters and sub-chapters of the report. A list of topics addressed in the report, and for which reviews will be needed, can be found under the links and sub-links listed on the NIPCC Web site’s Topical Archive page. To volunteer as a reviewer, or for more information, please send an email to NIPCC_contact@nipccreport.org.

Thank you, your help in this matter is greatly appreciated.

###################################################

THIS WEEK:

The New Hockey-stick: As anticipated, statistical expert Steve McIntyre is shredding the new hockey-stick reported (in Science on March 8) by Marcott, Shakun, Clark, and Mix (Marcott-Shakun). McIntyre has found major errors and unexplained peculiarities in the methodology and treatment of data. These include truncation of data that are inconsistent with the conclusions of the study and which show a recent decline in temperatures. McIntyre reports that it is unknown if it was intentional or if the mathematical algorithm they used went awry.

Marcott-Shakun assigned different dates of the top of the cores (most recent data) from those assigned in the original studies – for example the latest year was 510 years before present in the original study becomes present (1950). Another core was dated in the original publication as 10th century but was re-dated to Marcott-Shakun to present day. There may be a rational for doing this, but it should be stated in big red letters. One commentator wrote that the Marcott’s original thesis justified some re-dating. But McIntyre reported that re-dating he is concerned with occurred after the original thesis, and Marcott-Shakun does not provide a justification for wholesale re-dating.

Due to the the re-dating, the data bases of the thesis and the Marcott-Shakun study now appear to be incompatible. Perhaps even worse, a particular class of proxies, alkenones, which account for 31 of the 73 proxy data sets, (according to McIntyre’s reconstruction) show a decline in 20th century temperatures under the dates established in the original studies. The re-dated Marcott-Shakun series show a sharp increase in temperatures for the same period.

Do doubt, more will be revealed in due time as McIntyre doggedly pursues his goal. However, editors and journalists who broadcasted the new hockey-stick, which was highly promoted by Michael Mann, should take the quote of the week seriously. Please see links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

*******************

When Evidence and Models Conflict: Martin Livermore wrote a thought provoking essay on what may happen if current trends continue, and nature departs significantly from climate model predictions / projections. The scientific positions of both sides may harden, until the political support for climate science can no longer be justified.

One may add that this course may be unfortunate for science in general as the public may begin to reject all scientific inquiry. However, the alarmists have added greatly to the burden, by expressing great certainty in their work, which politicians have used to pursue costly and, probably unneeded, alternatives to fossil fuels.

*******************

NSPS: Some commentators are wondering why the EPA is letting the schedule slip for issuing final rules on New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). These new standards will include carbon dioxide emissions and effectively prevent all new coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and storage (CCS), a technology that has yet to be proven on a commercial scale. It is clear that EPA also wishes to impose similar standards on existing plants as well, but cannot do so until it issues the final rules on new plants.

Some commentators are suggesting that the EPA will relax the rules to permit high efficiency coal-fired plants; other commentators suggest that the EPA is waiting for the confirmation of Gina McCarthy to become the new administrator.

Former EPA General Counsel Roger Martella suggests there may be more at play than these two reasons. No one can request legal review of EPA’s proposed standards; the final standards must be issued before litigation can begin. The stalemate favors the EPA because no utility will start construction with the threat of impending, crippling rules. Martella thinks that the rules are legally vulnerable and the EPA is trying to make them less vulnerable. He also states that the proposed rules may be too severe for natural gas power plants, as well.

A further complication for EPA to regulate existing utilities is that the courts have ruled that EPA must rely on existing, commercially available technology. It cannot justify regulations by claiming it will drive technology.

An additional issue may be the upcoming 2014 election with the administration unwilling to totally outrage states dependent on coal-fired power plants and those with coal mining. Please see Article # 3 and links under EPA and other Regulators on the March.

*******************

Energy Policy: According to the Investor’s Business Daily, the stimulus bill contained about $90 Billion for various alternative energy schemes. After four years, there is very little economic benefit to be shown for this expenditure of money. Expensive electricity from unreliable wind and solar is not economically beneficial. Although demonized by many in Washington, starting before and all through this time US, oil and gas production on private and state lands have soared, one of the few bright spots in the economy. President Obama recognizes this success, because he takes credit for it whenever it is opportune, although his administration tried to stop it.

In what was billed an energy speech, a week-ago, Friday, President Obama proposed an “Energy Security Trust.” Following the ways of Washington, the proposal is to tax success to give to failure. The president proposed taxing oil and gas to subsidize alternative energy schemes. Making the proposal particularly illogical is claiming it will be done in the name of energy security. The US is secure in natural gas, no imports from other continents, and North America is well on its way to oil security, especially if Washington would drop efforts to block further development, such as the Keystone pipeline expansion. US production of liquids recently surpassed imports. Please see links under Energy Issues-US and Washington’s Control of Energy.

*******************

Alternative Energy Bankruptcies: Even recently, American politicians were insisting that America was falling behind China in the energy technology race. Solar and wind will be the success stories of the 21st century. TWTW suggested that China was not in a race to install solar and wind generation on the grid, but to sell solar and wind products to the West. With heavy government backing, Chinese solar panel manufacturers dominated the market. This week Suntech, once the world’s largest producer of solar panels, defaulted on $541 million in bonds, indicating the Chinese government, which backed it, recognizes that there is a glut of manufacturers and solar panels on the market. There is no reason to continue to fund a failing venture.

Also this week, Western Biomass Energy LLC filed for protection of bankruptcy court. Western Biomass was the first company to qualify for credits under the EPA program, certifying cellulosic ethanol for sales. Thanks to a law passed in 2007, refiners need to mix cellulosic ethanol into gasoline blends, even though commercial scale production does not exist. This further demonstrates that Washington cannot necessarily mandate or subsidize breakthroughs in technology. Someday a breakthrough may come for cellulosic ethanol, but no one knows when. The mandate was voided by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in January 2013. EPA cannot mandate a technology that is not commercially available. A question remains: will the EPA use its power to lower the volume mandate for ethanol, which is driving up gasoline prices? Please links under Subsidies and Mandates Forever, Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind, and Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other

*******************

Number of the Week: 42%. According to Steve McIntire reconstruction of data from alkenones, which account for 31 of the 73 proxy data sets used in Marcott-Shakun, show a decline in 20th century temperatures in the original publications while Marcott-Shakun shows a sharp increase in 20th century temperatures. This, alone, calls into question their value as proxies for instrument data.

###################################################

ARTICLES:

For the numbered articles below please see this week’s TWTW at: www.sepp.org. The articles are at the end of the pdf.

[SEPP Comment: One of the 5 dissenters to the British 2008 Climate Change Bill paid the penalty for stating the evidence was wanting; now has reason to remind opponents that their certainty was unfounded.]

The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along

As prices for carbon emissions continue to languish, Berlin is planning to cancel some key subsidy programs aimed at increasing reliance on renewable energies. Germany and other European countries seem uninterested in fixing the problem.

[SEPP Comment: McKitrick hopes that the leak of the Second Order Draft of AR5 will lessen the flexibility of the lead authors to introduce major changes into the final report. One must wait to see if this is so.]

[SEPP Comment: More on the direction of US government funded research and the irony of Bruce Alberts’ criticism the decline in funding from sequestering immediately after Science magazine, of which he is editor-in-chief, published the new hockey-stick which has significant problems.]

[SEPP Comment: Interesting thought. Assuming Exxon, Koch Brothers, etc, spent $100 million on “climate change deniers” and various governments spent hundreds of billions, does this not demonstrate that private industry knows how to spend money effectively and government does not?]

[SEPP Comment: From the abstract: “The most extreme events are especially sensitive to temperature changes, and we estimate a doubling of Katrina magnitude events associated with the warming over the 20th century.” Why is ACE falling? Katrina was only a magnitude 3 hurricane. The damage to the city, much of it built below sea level was due to the failure of the levees.]

[SEPP Comment: Probably as much to do with carbon dioxide enhancement promoting photosynthesis at the latitudes where the sun is at a low angle as with temperatures. Increased carbon dioxide also enhances the ability of plants to cope with stress such as temperatures and drought, all of which is ignored in the article in favor of alarmism.]

Reference: Keeley, S.P.E., Sutton, R.T. and Shaffrey, L.C. 2012. The impact of North Atlantic sea surface temperature errors on the simulation of North Atlantic European region climate. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 138: 1774-1783.

Given such findings, it seems more than odd that leaders of numerous nations are forging ahead with energy policy prescriptions for halting global warming – which has been non-existent for close to two decades now – based on climate change projections derived from mathematical models harboring acknowledged problems that are supposedly overcome by compensating errors.

Once again we have another study that provides no evidence for the climate-alarmist claim that rising global temperatures are leading to more frequent and more intense tropical cyclones in yet another part of the world. In fact, Zhang et al.’s findings provide evidence for the fallacy of that baseless claim.

Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes

Eco taxes are nonsense if the earth isn’t warming

GREEN taxes have already added at least £100 a year to household energy bills and successive governments have viewed the threat of global warming and rising CO2 levels as a as a means of brow-beating the public while making them pay for the privilege.

In 2009, Obama used the economic crisis as an excuse to pump $90 billion into grants, loans and tax credits for solar panel companies, battery makers, electric car startups, wind turbines and the like.

As today, he promised that this “investment’ would create new sources of energy, new jobs, and lower energy costs.

An Energy Security Trust That Will Keep the Nation Moving and Growing for Decades

[SEPP Comment: A difference between private and government investment is that if private investment fails, the investors, not the taxpayer, pays costs. This is one reason why private investment groups usually have far greater experience in evaluating the quality of the investment. Yet, often they still make major mistakes.]

[SEPP Comment: Does not mention capital costs, thus one cannot determine what is meant by cost-competitive. Predictable is important, but it is not the same as reliable 24 hours a day, seven days a week.]

[SEPP Comment: There is a difference between investing in R & D for a technology, and spending money trying to force a non-existent technology. A fuel that costs at least 6 time the prevailing rate insolates against changing fuel prices?]

[SEPP Comment: For years economists have railed against the US trade deficit. Now, this expert claims that hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas will harm the nation because the subsequent reduction of the trade deficit is bad.]

“The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is seeking credentialed individuals who are willing to serve as reviewers of the forthcoming NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered-2.”
I hope all the appropriately qualified people who frequent WUWT throw their hat in the ring, the world needs you to keep them honest.

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
While SEPP probably has already had more hits on this information than my blog will ever add, and WUWT gives it far more exposure, this is important. Lots of good information here. Also, I agree with R Barker. EPA is a rabid dog that has turned on us. It must be put down. We must have reasonable regulation and monitoring, but EPA has become antihuman. It must be ended.

“this course may be unfortunate for science in general”
There can be little doubt that the collapse of the CAGW scare will have serious consequences for science in general. A lot of politicians and media figures have invested their credibility in CAGW. They will be looking for a scapegoat to save their own reputations, and that means blaming scientists. Scientactivists like Mann and Hansen are likely to become the fall guys for all the damage done by the idiot politicians.

In his Guest Editorial in TWTW about the New Hockey Stick (The continuing battle over Marcott et al), Gordon J Fulks (PhD (Physics)) opens by saying:
“Technical fields, whether they be climate science or physics or meteorology or medicine or engineering or law, require some measure of training and competence. Practitioners are supposed to know more than just some of the technical jargon. That is why many are licensed. The public needs to be protected from charlatans. In many fields, it is illegal to claim expertise if you have none.
Unfortunately, it is impractical to license scientists because our field is so broad. Hence, we use education as the rough equivalent, because that is the first requirement in most licensing processes.”
I agree with Dr Fulks that training and competence are very important in technical fields, I think an enquiring mind is ultimately more useful. In my own field of electronics, I’ve known many who had the pedigree (completed requisite training) yet were essentially worthless, while many who started out as dabblers ended up masters.
I must respectfully disagree, totally, about licensing: history shows us that contrary to popular argument, licensing is not for the protection of the public from charlatans: it is about protecting someone’s rice bowl from honest competition. At least, I haven’t found a reason other than that, yet, though they often sound very plausible until you sort through the rationalizations and semantics.
I don’t mean to accuse, so please excuse me but Dr Fulks’ premise seems to be based in elitism: as if only those with a certain pedigree should be allowed to comment, or ask questions, or try to answer them. If this wasn’t his meaning, my apology for misunderstanding. But elitism of the sort that comes to my mind reading this is the philosophy of the political-activists claiming to be scientists who are behind AGW. It is Phil Jones and Michael Mann in the Climategate emails conspiring to prevent the work of other researchers from being published, for what I’m sure they thought were the best of reasons. We should avoid that sort of mindset. In fact, we must avoid that mindset. It is antithetical to the scientific method.
Scholars have taught me, and I believe it, that completing a course of study is not the finish line, it’s the starting gate. Scholars also taught me that the path I took is not the only path to knowledge, and to not criticize the path others have taken. We should listen to what others have to say without prejudice, and evaluate it on it’s merits (As a talisman against elitism, a very wise man once told me, ‘Son, let us not be too impressed with our own accomplishments, hear?’). You never know who might have the best idea.
Dr Fulks discusses the phenomenon of those who, in their responses to posts, do indeed appear to be trying to pass as having expertise they do not, most likely cutting and pasting information from web-searches in order to appear knowledgeable. A large part of his editorial is about how credentials in science, like a degree, should be used as licenses to screen these people out. Yet even he notes that, like licensing, it’s not perfect. I agree. And like licensing, it’s a terrible idea, chilling original thought that doesn’t arrive wrapped in acceptable colors. An incompetent will out; and will be tuned out, eventually, degree or not. Just as someone who hangs out a shingle as a plumber but doesn’t know anything about it will develop a reputation as someone not to call. A license doesn’t protect a customer. Knowing the reputation of your plumber does. A writer’s degree doesn’t guarantee a good idea. Our own acumen allows us to recognize those. Sometimes.
Many otherwise very intelligent people have become so blinkered by their belief in a particular theory that their opinions within their “field of expertise” are worthless: their responses are dogmatic, and no longer based in scientific enquiry or critical thought. This is a pitfall in science; history is replete with examples.
Science pursues answers. It doesn’t stop to admire them or preen. And to pursue answers, we must ask questions. Seems to me the greatest discoveries in science have been due to how a question was asked. Ernst Rutherford had the unparalleled record of teaching/mentoring 9 Nobel laureates in Physics (his own was in Chemistry, to his amusement). His genius was in tossing off research projects like party favors. He had a mind full of questions. His perspective seemed not to see what is, but to ask what he didn’t see. A trait he shared with Richard Feynman, another brilliant man and incredibly talented individual, and not only in Physics.
Science is not elitist; we should take care that we are not, either Regardless our pedigree, anyone may ask a question. And there’s no rhyme, reason or law which says that we must first have a degree to try to answer them, either…a fact which has annoyed the doctrinaire in their ivory towers since before Socrates, I’m sure.
(In memory of M. Leon Foucault, the ultimate amateur, and his pendulum—for proving a principle that “scientists” were previously only able to assume, enraging the “professionals” by understanding full well what he’d done, and then having the gall to explain it mathematically to them when they could not, even with their own reproductions of his proof in front of them)
.

When Evidence and Models Conflict: Martin Livermore wrote a thought provoking essay on what may happen if current trends continue, and nature departs significantly from climate model predictions / projections. The scientific positions of both sides may harden, until the political support for climate science can no longer be justified.
One may add that this course may be unfortunate for science in general as the public may begin to reject all scientific inquiry. However, the alarmists have added greatly to the burden, by expressing great certainty in their work, which politicians have used to pursue costly and, probably unneeded, alternatives to fossil fuels.

This is a bit naive, don’t you think? Just say that the global climate fell by 1K in the next month and kept on going down. Hansen, Mann et al wouldn’t miss a beat. They would call it proof of man-made climate change.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy